Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “INformation”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,261 records · Page 70Linked to original sources
USGS2021

Capacity assessment for Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) and future integrated monitoring and predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary Managers of our Nation’s resources face unprecedented challenges driven by the convergence of increasing, competing societal demands and a changing climate that affects the stability, vulnerability, and predictability of those resources. To help meet these challenges, the scientific community must take advantage of all available technologies, data, and integrative Earth systems modeling capacity to better inform resource and risk management decisions. This is the overarching goal of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision: “By 2030, the USGS will deliver well integrated observations and predictions of the future state of natural systems—water, ecosystems, energy, minerals, hazards—at regional and national scales, working primarily with federal, state, and academic partners to develop and operate the capability” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). Providing more integrated Earth systems science and actionable information to decision makers, stakeholders, and the public requires a better understanding of the depth and distribution of existing capacity (capabilities, tools, and techniques) across the Bureau. Identifying existing capacity is also a critical first step toward gap analysis and targeted investments to increase capacity over time. The USGS formed a Capacity Assessment Team (CAT) and charged it with (1) conducting a Request for Information (RFI) to identify existing USGS expertise and activities supportive of integrated and predictive science to inform decision making, (2) developing a strategy and proof-of-concept for a continuously updated capacity assessment capability, and (3) identifying lessons learned to inform development of best practices for future capacity assessment efforts. The RFI took the form of a survey, with content guided by the science and technology needs identified in a USGS report titled “Grand Challenges for Integrated U.S. Geological Survey Science—A Workshop Report” (Jenni and others, 2017). The 44-question survey provided respondents the ability to rate their level of experience with a suite of priority disciplines, analysis and modeling approaches, technologies, and stakeholder engagement strategies and to enter optional narrative text for supporting context. An introductory portion focused on general science capacity assessment, followed by three sections targeting capabilities related to the foundational components of EarthMAP: (1) data and information integration, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information. The survey results provided a high-level snapshot of USGS capacity in the targeted areas. Respondents (1,035 individuals) represented approximately 13 percent of the USGS across all mission areas and regions. Seventy-four percent of the respondents held a science-focused position title and the remainder had position titles in information technology, computer science, management, administrative, or other (contractors, volunteers, emeritus, and unknown). To provide greater insight into respondent capabilities and activities, information from the U.S. Department of the Interior and USGS enterprise information systems were used to further characterize topical expertise and organizational associations of survey respondents. To address the ongoing need to assess the Bureau’s capacity to address integrated predictive science priorities, the CAT developed a software-based proof-of-concept called the Integrated Science Assessment Information Database (iSAID) for assembling various information sources together toward making the full extent of USGS capabilities and scientific assets available for routine capacity assessment. This proof-of-concept is intended to serve as a catalyst for further development. The process of implementing the EarthMAP capacity assessment survey, analyzing survey responses, and developing the proof-of-concept resulted in lessons learned, findings, and recommendations. Example scenarios throughout the report demonstrate how capacity assessment data can inform science planning. Three overarching findings and recommendations are: (1) Finding: Capacity is limited in some critical disciplines, skills, and technology applications, but “sufficient” depends on the question and the need relative to availability at a given point in time. Recommendation: Develop an on-demand capacity assessment framework that enables rapid identification and evaluation of existing and available expertise to support decision needs as they arise. (2) Finding: Institutional barriers and lack of awareness constrain the ability of USGS staff to adopt new technologies, collaborate across administrative boundaries, and deliver actionable information to stakeholders in a timely manner. However, these barriers are not universally experienced. Recommendation: Pursue more targeted inquiries to clarify which institutional barriers are obstructing the adoption of new technologies and approaches or the sharing of expertise and equipment across organizational and regional boundaries. These inquiries should inform USGS leadership, mission areas, and regions whether policies can be revised or whether a lack of understanding is creating perceived obstacles. Highlight cases when staff have successfully adopted new technologies and approaches to advance EarthMAP priorities and provide actionable information in a timely manner to spread awareness of how perceived obstacles can be navigated and overcome when appropriate. (3) Finding: Examples of people and projects integrating across disciplines and scales and applying advanced approaches to meet complex stakeholder needs exist. Such examples provide transfer value across the spectrum from approach to decision making. Many projects, already underway, appear to meet elements of the EarthMAP vision, and the USGS has people who can provide leadership in multiple types of specific integrated science efforts. Recommendation: Use these findings as a starting point for near-term strategic planning for integrated science. Highlight, incentivize, and build on existing interdisciplinary predictive science and information delivery activities across the USGS to advance toward further realization of an EarthMAP capacity. The CAT efforts to develop and assess existing USGS capacity to advance the EarthMAP vision revealed a fundamental challenge for not only this effort but any effort to assess existing capacity: A considerable amount of thought, time, and effort is required to survey and assess capabilities and tools available to support a given need, yet best results are still likely to provide an incomplete assessment. To better meet the frequent need to assess capabilities, tools, products, and projects that address an expressed strategic priority, the CAT proposes the concept of an on-demand capacity assessment framework supported by a software package that dynamically pulls and integrates information from existing USGS information systems and public domain registries. Although existing USGS enterprise information systems currently lack the structure, cross-system consistency, interoperability, and stability to support a continuously updated capacity assessment capability, we identify reasonable near-term steps to improve the utility of information gathered on expertise and project capacity and to improve the consistency and completeness of information and the ability of USGS systems to share that information. The ability to search and characterize this information will make future assessments of capacity faster, more complete, more efficient, and more targeted. This approach would grow the Bureau’s capacity knowledge over time, iteratively improving the ability to access, leverage, and synthesize existing capabilities and assets as well as identify and fill critical gaps. The greatest promise for developing integrated science could lie in linking across existing projects and expertise to create a multi-project capacity for addressing large, complex environmental issues.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Role of social media and networking in volcanic crises and communication

The growth of social media as a primary and often preferred news source has contributed to the rapid dissemination of information about volcanic eruptions and potential volcanic crises as an eruption begins. Information about volcanic activity comes from a variety of sources: news organisations, emergency management personnel, individuals (both public and official) and volcano monitoring agencies. Once posted, this information is easily shared, increasing the reach to a much broader population than the original audience. The onset and popularity of social media as a vehicle for eruption information dissemination has presented many benefits as well as challenges, and points towards a need for a more unified system for information. This includes volcano observatories using social media as an official channels to distribute activity statements, forecasts and predictions on social media, in addition to the archiving of images and data activity. This chapter looks at two examples of projects that collect / disseminate information regarding volcanic crises and eruptive activity utilizing social media sources. Based on those examples, recommendations are made to volcanic observatories in relation to the use of social media as a two-way communication tool. These recommendations include: using social media as a two-way dialogue to communicate and receive information directly from the public and other sources; stating that the social media account is from an official source; and, posting types of information that the public are seeking such as images, videos and figures.

Book chapter↗
USGS1998

Geospatial Technology Applications and Infrastructure in the Biological Resources Division

Executive Summary -- Automated spatial processing technology such as geographic information systems (GIS), telemetry, and satellite-based remote sensing are some of the more recent developments in the long history of geographic inquiry. For millennia, humankind has endeavored to map the Earth's surface and identify spatial relationships. But the precision with which we can locate geographic features has increased exponentially with satellite positioning systems. Remote sensing, GIS, thematic mapping, telemetry, and satellite positioning systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are tools that greatly enhance the quality and rapidity of analysis of biological resources. These technologies allow researchers, planners, and managers to more quickly and accurately determine appropriate strategies and actions. Researchers and managers can view information from new and varying perspectives using GIS and remote sensing, and GPS receivers allow the researcher or manager to identify the exact location of interest. These geospatial technologies support the mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Resources Division (BRD) and the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) by providing a cost-effective and efficient method for collection, analysis, and display of information. The BRD mission is 'to work with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound management and conservation of our Nation's biological resources.' A major responsibility of the BRD is to develop and employ advanced technologies needed to synthesize, analyze, and disseminate biological and ecological information. As the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) states, 'fulfilling this mission depends on effectively balancing the immediate need for information to guide management of biological resources with the need for technical assistance and long-range, strategic information to understand and predict emerging patterns and trends in ecological systems.' Information sharing plays a key role in nearly everything BRD does. The Strategic Science Plan discusses the need to (1) develop tools and standards for information transfer, (2) disseminate information, and (3) facilitate effective use of information. This effort centers around the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), components of the National Information Infrastructure. The NBII and NSDI are distributed electronic networks of biological and geographical data and information, as well as tools to help users around the world easily find and retrieve the biological and geographical data and information they need. The BRD is responsible for developing scientifically and statistically reliable methods and protocols to assess the status and trends of the Nation's biological resources. Scientists also conduct important inventory and monitoring studies to maintain baseline information on these same resources. Research on those species for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has trust responsibilities (including endangered species and migratory species) involves laboratory and field studies of individual animals and the environments in which they live. Researchboth tactical and strategicis conducted at the BRD's 17 science centers and 81 field stations, 54 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units in 40 states, and at 11 former Cooperative Park Study Units. Studies encompass fish, birds, mammals, and plants, as well as their ecosystems and the surrounding landscape. Biological Resources Division researchers use a variety of scientific tools in their endeavors to understand the causes of biological and ecological trends. Research results are used by managers to predict environmental changes and to help them take appropriate measures to manage resources effectively. The BRD Geospatial Technology Program facilitates the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data and informat

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS2010

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010

Each chapter of the 2010 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) includes information on events, trends, and issues for each mineral commodity as well as discussions and tabular presentations on domestic industry structure, Government programs, tariffs, 5-year salient statistics, and world production and resources. The MCS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2009 mineral production data for the world. More than 90 individual minerals and materials are covered by two-page synopses. For mineral commodities for which there is a Government stockpile, detailed information concerning the stockpile status is included in the two-page synopsis. National reserves information for most mineral commodities found in this report, including those for the United States, are derived from a variety of sources. The ideal source of such information would be comprehensive evaluations that apply the same criteria to deposits in different geographic areas and report the results by country. In the absence of such evaluations, national reserves estimates compiled by countries for selected mineral commodities are a primary source of national reserves information. Lacking national assessment information by governments, sources such as academic articles, company reports, presentations by company representatives, and trade journal articles, or a combination of these, serve as the basis for national reserves information reported in the mineral commodity sections of this publication. A national estimate may be assembled from the following: historically reported reserves information carried for years without alteration because no new information is available; historically reported reserves reduced by the amount of historical production; and company reported reserves. International minerals availability studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM), before 1996, and estimates of identified resources by an international collaborative effort (the International Strategic Minerals Inventory) are the basis for some reserves estimates. The USGS collects information about the quantity and quality of mineral resources but does not directly measure reserves, and companies or governments do not directly report reserves to the USGS. Reassessment of reserves is a continuing process, and the intensity of this process differs for mineral commodities, countries, and time period. Throughout the history of Mineral Commodity Summaries and its predecessor prior to 1978, Commodity Data Summaries, the presentation of resource data has evolved. Although world resources have been discussed each year, presentation of reserves and reserve base data varied. From 1957 through 1979, only reserves information was published in the reports, but from 1980 through 1987, only estimates of reserve base, a concept introduced by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) and the USGS in 1980, were published. Beginning in 1988, both reserves and reserve base information were listed for each mineral commodity where applicable and available. Prior to 1996, the minerals availability studies conducted by the USBM and work with international collaborators were the basis for reserve base data reported in Mineral Commodity Summaries. When the USBM was closed in 1996, this function was discontinued. Since that time, reserve base estimates have been updated to be consistent with changes in reserves, but the nonreserves component of the information upon which the reserve base data were estimated is not current enough to support defensible reserve base estimates. For that reason, publication of reserve base estimates was discontinued for Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010. Abbreviations and units of measure, and definitions of selected terms used in the report, are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. A resource/reserve classification for minerals, based on USGS Circular 831 (published with the U.S. Bureau of Mines) is Appendix C, and a directory of USGS minerals information country specialists and their responsibilities is Appendix D. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the MCS 2010 are welcomed.

Mineral Commodity Summaries↗
USGS2009

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2009

Each chapter of the 2009 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) includes information on events, trends, and issues for each mineral commodity as well as discussions and tabular presentations on domestic industry structure, Government programs, tariffs, 5-year salient statistics, and world production and resources. The MCS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2008 mineral production data for the world. More than 90 individual minerals and materials are covered by two-page synopses. For mineral commodities for which there is a Government stockpile, detailed information concerning the stockpile status is included in the two-page synopsis. Because specific information concerning committed inventory was no longer available from the Defense Logistics Agency, National Defense Stockpile Center, that information, which was included in earlier Mineral Commodity Summaries publications, has been deleted from Mineral Commodity Summaries 2009. National reserves and reserve base information for most mineral commodities found in this report, including those for the United States, are derived from a variety of sources. The ideal source of such information would be comprehensive evaluations that apply the same criteria to deposits in different geographic areas and report the results by country. In the absence of such evaluations, national reserves and reserve base estimates compiled by countries for selected mineral commodities are a primary source of national reserves and reserve base information. Lacking national assessment information by governments, sources such as academic articles, company reports, common business practice, presentations by company representatives, and trade journal articles, or a combination of these, serve as the basis for national reserves and reserve base information reported in the mineral commodity sections of this publication. A national estimate may be assembled from the following: historically reported reserves and reserve base information carried for years without alteration because no new information is available; historically reported reserves and reserve base reduced by the amount of historical production; and company reported reserves. International minerals availability studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, before 1996, and estimates of identified resources by an international collaborative effort (the International Strategic Minerals Inventory) are the basis for some reserves and reserve base estimates. The USGS collects information about the quantity and quality of mineral resources but does not directly measure reserves, and companies or governments do not directly report reserves or reserve base to the USGS. Reassessment of reserves and reserve base is a continuing process, and the intensity of this process differs for mineral commodities, countries, and time period. Abbreviations and units of measure, and definitions of selected terms used in the report, are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. A resource/reserve classification for minerals, based on USGS Circular 831 (published with the U.S. Bureau of Mines) is Appendix C, and a directory of USGS minerals information country specialists and their responsibilities is Appendix D. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the MCS 2009 are welcomed.

Mineral Commodity Summaries↗
USGS2018

How and why Upper Colorado River Basin land, water, and fire managers choose to use drought tools (or not)

On the Western Slope of Colorado, variable climate and precipitation conditions are typical. Periods of drought—which may be defined by lack of water, high temperatures, low soil moisture, or other indicators—cause a range of impacts across sectors, including water, land, and fire management. The Western Slope’s Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) was one of the first pilot areas in which the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) implemented a drought early warning system (DEWS) in 2009. NIDIS presently supports eight regional DEWS; as of 2016, the UCRB DEWS has been incorporated into an expanded Intermountain West (IMW) DEWS. The selection of the UCRB for an initial DEWS reflects the regional importance of drought information for managing water supply for agriculture and other uses, and the need for effective decision support related to drought. Additionally, new drought information products were developed specifically for the UCRB DEWS, and a number of others have been created since 2009, adding to the preexisting toolkit for drought decision making. The various elements of the UCRB drought early warning system can be expected to be more or less suitable for the needs of different decision makers. As a result, the UCRB makes an ideal case study to examine the use of scientific information products and tools in which the broad decision context (managing drought) is defined, but information needs of current and prospective users vary. Thus decision makers will make varied choices about which of the available tools to use or not use, depending on the particular management and institutional context in which they work. This report investigates the factors that affect the choices of decision makers about whether and how to use particular information sources, products, and tools. The investigation focused on the following research questions: What decisions do managers make related to drought in the Upper Colorado region and particularly the Western Slope of Colorado? About which impacts of drought are they most concerned? What indicators and information products do decision makers rely on to manage for the impacts of drought in this region? How do decision makers find out about and choose between available drought information sources, products, and tools? What gaps (if any) do they perceive in currently available drought information and tools? Studies of decision support tools or information sources often concentrate on the known users of a given tool(s). Such an approach can yield useful information; it provides rich insight into the experiences of users and can suggest design modifications to make existing tools more effective. Yet it is not an effective approach to capture the perspectives and needs of prospective tool users or to investigate the factors that affect whether or not someone chooses to use tools in the first place. To overcome this challenge, in this study the author instead used a geographically based sampling strategy in which a range of natural resource managers from preidentified Federal management units and selected State agencies on the Western Slope were considered prospective users of tools. Prospective users were then asked to describe in an open-ended fashion what information and tools they do or do not use and why. This approach allowed for respondents to report both use and nonuse of tools, and thus the ability to identify factors that influence information and tool use choices by managers.

Open-File Report↗